Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#661

Post by WalterBright »

quantum_solanum wrote: post #641
WalterBright wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just means not breaking the rules of the game set by the government You can make up your own definitions of things as you like. It's a common rhetorical device to divert a conversation into a swamp. Me, I'll stick to commonly understood meanings.

that's literally YOUR own definition, as you said elsewhere in the thread > Free markets require a working police and justice system

You're greatly misinterpreting what I wrote. The government is needed to implement a free market. The government does not define a free market.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#662

Post by kbelder »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #636
mensetmanusman wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women’s rights historically aligned well with gdp/capita growth.

> Women’s rights historically aligned well with gdp/capita growth. How much of this is simply a consequence of the fact that if you take care of your kids, it is not counted as a part of GDP, but if you pay someone else to take care of your kids, it is a part of GDP. So the GDP would increase even if the kids get exactly the same care, and even if all the money the woman makes is spent on paying the babysitters. The…

In the latter scenario, an extra person made an extra $1000.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#663

Post by Dylan16807 »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #269
imgabe wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you can still transmit the disease even after getting the shot, then it doesn't protect those people anyway. They will still have to exercise whatever caution is necessary to protect themselves, which they would have to do anyway, because there are other diseases as well.

Yeah, it's a partial measure that carries no guarantees... which makes it a poor candidate for a fix to roll out to everyone, in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to me why officials aren't focusing just on getting as close to 100% as possible of the vulnerable vaccinated. It's well known that surviving covid is a much better protection, and thus contributes more to herd immunity, than the mRNA shot+boosters. Perhaps…

> It doesn't make sense to me why officials aren't focusing just on getting as close to 100% as possible of the vulnerable vaccinated.

That's what the priority classes were for. But at this point we have plenty of shots for everyone, at least in the US. So anyone who will take the shot is a good target.

> A vaccine mandate is a great way of making a lot of money for some people...

We've already done so many shots that a vaccine mandate wouldn't be that much in terms of profits. And in the longer term it could easily mean less shots total, if we shut down the virus.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#664

Post by SubiculumCode »

anamax wrote: post #207
SubiculumCode wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power and foolishness of democracy lies therein. A good story is more motivating that the complicated truths of life. It is probably better for all of us to link every tornado and hurricane to climate change in a neat little story than refrain from doing so because we cannot link the particular storm on man-made climate change. The story has power to effect positive change.

> It is probably better for all of us to link every tornado and hurricane to climate change in a neat little story And then when someone points out that the number of severe tornados per year was larger a couple of decades ago .... Thanks to improvements in monitoring equipment, we know about tornados and hurricanes now that we wouldn't have recorded before.

True. Yet, misinformation persists and tends to be as or more motivating that the truth.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#665

Post by Dylan16807 »

samatman wrote: post #334
the_doctah wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines don't prevent spread of Covid.

Vaccines didn't prevent the spread of smallpox either, until they finally did. We're not smallpoxing Covid out of existence without a much better vaccine.

> We're not smallpoxing Covid out of existence without a much better vaccine.

Are you sure? At this point we can vaccinate almost everyone, and we wouldn't have to reduce the R factor by all that much.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#666

Post by anamax »

DarylZero wrote: post #502
anamax wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. What's your plan for folks who refuse to pay the carbon tax? Remember, Eric Garner was killed as part of enforcing NYC's cigarette tax. (He was selling "loosies".)

Most "loosies" are brand name cigarettes bought in a store (so with the tax already paid on them).

I should have written "regulatory system."

It's not legal to sell single cigarettes in NY regardless of source.

That said, the "only registered sellers are allowed" system is intended to combat cigarette smuggling/tax evasion.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#667

Post by DarylZero »

WalterBright wrote: post #661
quantum_solanum wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's literally YOUR own definition, as you said elsewhere in the thread > Free markets require a working police and justice system

You're greatly misinterpreting what I wrote. The government is needed to implement a free market. The government does not define a free market.

> The government does not define a free market

Complete fantasy.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#668

Post by shkkmo »

the_doctah wrote: post #654
shkkmo wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, among the many people I know who have been vaccinated, there's been just a single breakthrough case, and that case was due to catching covid from an unnvaccinated co-worker. Since you seem a bit confused, here's what we know and don't know AFAIK: 1) Vaccination reduces your chance of getting infected. The efficacy depends on the strain of covid and the vaccine, but I have yet to see any science indicating…

Thanks for the assessment, but I'm not "confused" at all. Maybe if the pro-vaccine-mandate crowd wasn't so snide and insufferable people might take you more seriously.

Where do you see me advocating for vaccine mandates?

If there is a part of my comment you found snide, please let me know as that was not my intent.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#669

Post by shkkmo »

ejb999 wrote: post #238
shkkmo wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing transmission != reducing transmission rates. The vaccines absolutely do the later.

are you sure about that? - seems right now the most vaccinated states also seem to have the largest spike in cases - I agree the vaccine, at this point anyway, seems to be reducing deaths - but not sure I agree on transmission - seems like it it still spreading worse than before. And no, I am not an antivaxxer i I am triple vaxxed myself and work in the healthcare field.

The only real overlap right now is new england, places like the PNW have high vaccinations and low case rates. Regardless, there are so many factors that affect transmission, you can't easily learn much from geographic comparisons due to the impossibility of eliminating the confounds.

However the science is clear, all else being equal, covid vaccines reduce transmission rates.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#670

Post by [deleted] »

kbelder wrote: post #662
Viliam1234 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women’s rights historically aligned well with gdp/capita growth. How much of this is simply a consequence of the fact that if you take care of your kids, it is not counted as a part of GDP, but if you pay someone else to take care of your kids, it is a part of GDP. So the GDP would increase even if the kids get exactly the same care, and even if all the money the woman makes is spent on paying the babysitters. The…

In the latter scenario, an extra person made an extra $1000.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN